well you're here in the nick of time and
if it's okay with you
i will start the webinar okay go for it
okay we are now public
hi everyone long time no see
yeah right exactly all right
uh do we have uh a quorum of members
looks like one two three four five six
at least
that i can see here
okay all right
don't we have seven mr levine's also
joining us
okay
i'm not showing him on my list but i see
him
okay there he is hey rick
all right i can read your lips that's
good um
all right then in that case i will uh
call the mark the official
march 2021 meeting of the bexley board
of zoning and planning
to order i don't have a gavel to hit
here but we'll call
to order regardless and ask
the zoning
staff chairman to call the roll whatever
your name is over there kathy
uh mr schick here
mr miss mitchell here
mr turner here mr fowler
here mr marsh here mr levine
here and chairman b hall here as well
thank you
at this time the do we have some people
in the uh
audience on this case uh karen
or on this evening i should ask
uh for attendees yes um
yeah we have 11 attendees we have one
that's raising his hand already but um
all right well let me make the first
comment which is uh
if anybody has any public comments about
the board of zoning and planning
uh other than comments about a
particular case that we're going to be
hearing
um they are have the right to make
comments and so i would invite anybody
in the
audience to do so by raising your hand
on the computer screen there
i see no hands okay thank you very much
oh now i see a hand okay hold on
that's cool now i don't okay
all right and mind you folks if this is
about
process that's one thing or about the
general work of the bees app that's fine
but if it's about any of the cases
we'll hear comments as those cases are
called
with that i would ask if everybody has
had a chance
to review the february 25th
and actually end the january 28th i
think
yeah uh minutes from the prior
to official board of zonian planning
meetings
and if so i would uh ask number one does
anybody have any changes
modifications or
comments about the january minutes
and if not i would entertain a motion to
approve the january 2021 minutes
so thank you alicia is there a second
mr turner second thank you mr turner
um please call the role uh
kathy miss mitchell yes
mr sick yes mr turner
yes mr levine yes mr marsh
yes mr fout yes chairman viho
i vote yes as well the minutes of the
january meeting are approved
does any member of the board have any
changes
modifications or comments about the
february 2021
meeting minutes
hearing none i would entertain a motion
to approve the
february 2021 minutes
so moved thank you second
a second thank you alicia uh
kathy please call the role mr schick
yes miss mitchell yes mr turner
yes mr fout yes mr marsh
yes mr levine yes chairman b hall
yes the february minutes are hereby
approved
um we have um
some as an indication we have some other
business
before new business on the on the agenda
is that correct ms rose yes there was a
request
first i wanted to announce there's two
items on there 12 sessions
that notice went out if anyone's here
for that case
that will not be heard this evening and
i just want to make that clear that's
okay but but the second case which was a
reconsideration they had asked if that
could be
discussed prior to getting into the
whole meeting i just wanted to ask
but that's under other business at the
bottom of the agenda there
got it yes it's item b okay
so let me uh call that and we'll see
where that goes uh we received
correspondence from
uh one of the contiguous neighbor i
believe saying
that they are interested in the board
re-hearing this matter of course
the problem is that neither the
applicant nor the
north surroundings uh property owners or
any
citizen of bexley is able to uh request
a consider
reconsideration of a
matter that was already voted on however
the rules do
allow members of the board
to make a motion
to reconsider a certain case if they
wish to do so
this is the case involving bzap
involving 2404 fair avenue
the applicants was brenda parker
and the owners are tyler and alizon
chamblin
that matter was heard at the very end
about
2 a.m or 1 30 a.m on the last
meeting and uh
so in view of that and and the fact that
there were six members there i would
be uh willing to entertain even though
i'm not
uh rooting one way or the other on this
but if there's anybody on the panel that
feels that they would like to reconsider
this case
you might recall the situation um was
having to do with uh extending
in addition to the rear which hooked
onto
eventually hooked onto the garage
and was two stories
in in size as i recall and the
there was a side yard in a rear yard
setback
variants they were the garage is already
in the rear yard and side yard
setback but this was to put the this
portions of this
addition into the same setbacks
so does that give everybody a some
recollection what this case was about
so let me give the members of the board
an opportunity to request a
reconsideration
of this matter or make a motion to do so
if no one wishes to do so so be it but
if somebody does that's fine as well
and if you do what we would have to do
is send out a two-week notice and set a
date for that
hearing so it would not be heard this
evening right i mean it might
possibly just go on to the uh april
agenda possibly
i've read joyce's letter and it sounds
reasonable to me
but i wasn't present at the hearing
well does that mean i can't move to
you know i think i can clarify that i'll
go ahead and move for it
okay who's speaking mr schick
okay mr sheik okay mr schick uh you you
were there for that
uh case as i recall yes sir
thank you i just wanted to verify that
on the record um
all right so mr schick has made a motion
to reconsider
the case at 2404 fair avenue is there a
second to that motion
i'll second it okay um
oh is there any discussion necessary on
this i mean i think you you're either
willing or not willing to reconsider it
i don't think really there's there
should be any discussion about the
merits of the case this is just about
the merits of the situation so to speak
and whether
uh reconsideration ought to be uh
heard or held so with that go ahead mr
fountain
speaking of merits of situation um
unless they can point to specific
decisions that we made that weren't
correct i'm not sure that that's grounds
for it on the other hand
yeah 2 a.m was a really difficult time
to expect them to be able to make their
case
uh clearly and who have waited a long
time and in light of that
i mean yeah that seemed it does seem a
reasonable request
yeah that's this same way that i felt
about it in
in when i said circumstances i was i
mean i think
it's fair to say that the board members
were fairly beaten up by that point in
time as well
as the general public and of course both
the proponents and the opponents
had been waiting for hours and hours it
wasn't like they waited an hour
it was like we waited five hours or more
actually so for that reason i thought it
was
reasonable to uh ask if there was
a motion to reconsider so with that
comment
in mind does anybody else have any
comments i just have one
kathy would this be considered old
business or new business and if it's old
business is there a way we could
have it at the front end of the agenda
next time to ensure that it's
quickly done for that okay yeah
that's fine all right uh kathy please
call the roll on the motion that's
pending to reconsider
2404 fair avenue mr schick
yes miss mitchell yes
mr turner yes mr fout
i'd i'd like to go on on record is
hoping that
the parties will be able to approach
each other and come to some resolution
but yes i'm happy to hear this again mr
marsh
yes mr levine yes and chairman bihau
i vote yes also so the matter will be
reconsidered and
depending on how big the docket is for
the april meeting
uh i would suggest that it go on to the
april
agenda uh ms rose why don't you
see how that goes and if we need to send
if we need to have a special meeting for
that case
i don't think we will it's a short
agenda oh good and i don't think it's a
uh
i think most of the facts are fairly
well known i don't think it's going to
be something that's going to take a lot
of rehashing
so of course i've been wrong before
but nonetheless all right
yeah right exactly exactly i don't guess
anymore on any of these
no i'm hearing you i hear you all right
so
the next case on the agenda is i go
back up there is
471 north parkview that's case
bzap-21-21
the applicant is jim furrow the owner is
jay schottenstein
the request of the applicant is uh for a
variance from bexley city code section
1264.03 a
which limits a fence wall or combination
thereof
uh to not exceed
72 inches in height
in order to allow an eight foot high
green
vinyl coated fence along the west and
north
property lines the applicant is seeking
approval
to place a portion of the fence in the
riparian setback along alum creek
is there someone here on behalf of the
applicant
if so raise your hand on the computer
screen on the zoom screen
karen are you seeing any response yes
and i just let him into the panelist
room
as we now know it takes a second for
them to get in but now
james burkhart should be able to testify
to this case
in attendance and if you're in
attendance and want to
testify just hold tight until after the
presentation and
then when you raise your hand um you'll
be allowed to give testimony
okay very good mr burkhardt can you hear
me i can hear you can you hear me
i can i wanted to ask what is your
relationship to the
to the application um
i'm really representing the owner right
now but i'm doing it kind of through
uh a landscape contractor gary kim and
kim and associates that
most of you are probably aware of who's
been working with the
schottensteins since the they they
started
and gary couldn't make it uh he and i
work together on a lot of projects
i am a registered landscape architect
and i'm here tonight just
to represent the schottensteins and okay
on his behalf so all right thank thank
you very much i need to get
the clarification will you raise your
right hand and be sworn
can you see me mr burkhart no i can't
see but if you raise your right hand
i'll believe you
yeah it's it's up do you swear or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
the board this evening is the truth and
nothing but the truth
i do thank you very much staff uh
who's got this kathy's this year got it
all right so you've already read the
request correct
i'm sorry you've already read the
request i did
okay all right so the property owner
also owns the lot
immediately south of the slot which
currently has an eight foot high chain
link fence along the side and rear
property lines
the applicant has also submitted his
request to install this chain link fence
within the riparian setback and is
subject to further review by the
franklin county soil and water
structures are allowed in the floodway
as long as they don't impede flow
james david reuter who is an urban
conservative conserva conservationist
sorry with franklin county soil and
water has provided an email that could
be
that this can be done by using open
bottoms and breakaway type construction
that accounts for the base flood
elevation found in the area
uh in the fema maps and flood plain maps
for this location although he has not
seen the particulars of this case a
chain link fence
could extend into the flood plain as
long as the bottom cord is level with
the base flood elevation or would be
constructed in a way
to allow flow or debris to be unimpeded
i'm aware that as part of this site prep
and removal of the honeysuckle and
questioned
what would be replaced i would also like
to know if there are
slats proposed within the chain link in
addition to the
colored vinyl color of the vinyl coating
uh according to 1252 101 which is a sub
subsection 1258 100 of alum creek
preservation
district uh
in accordance with mexico section
458.101
permitted uses not requiring a zoning
certificate the following are permitted
and do not require a certificate of
zoning compliance however in this case
because we're asking for
variance that's why it's before the
board but property maintenance and rent
revegetation and or reformation the
enjoyment access
plants and maintenance of lawn landscape
shrubbery or trees
riparian setbacks may be re-vegetated
and or reforested with
non-invasive plant species uh the
applicant or property owner are
encouraged to seek guidance from the
franklin county soil and water
conservation district staff
recommendation is
there is that there is a fence of this
height that exists at the lot to the
south in the same location requested for
this lot staff finds that if the board
is in favor of granting a two-foot
variance to the six-foot height limit
under mexico section 12-6403-a
it should be conditioned upon the bottom
part of the fence being
level with the base flood elevation or
would be constructed in a way to allow
flow
or debris to be unimpeded this is a
zoning issue not subject to arb
but i would also advise a condition that
they also seek approval on whatever
plantings
go back in the area that's been modified
to allow for offense
okay thank you very much
uh mr burkhart do you uh would you like
to
make any comments about the request
and the suggested conditions by the city
staff
um well our major concern for the
schonstein family
is is really security they've uh they've
had
incidents where there are people and
vagrants that have been down on the
property
you can find evidence of of you know
bottles and cans etc needles etc
and uh the only problem that i have with
the uh condition to have
some kind of a feature where either the
fence is above the 100-year floodplain
or at least the floodway
or some type of a uh offense that that
actually
uh should i say rotates uh with the
floodplain is that
that kind of defeats what we're trying
to do in terms of security
uh if if water can push the bottom of
the fence open then obviously
vagrants and so forth can do the same
thing so you know we have concern with
that
um our thoughts are that right now it's
almost i wouldn't call it derelict but
it's
it's not not a very pretty site it's uh
full of honeysuckle and vines
and so on and so forth uh we're just
trying to clean it up
if possible primarily just put it back
in lawn
uh hopefully with you know some some
plants that
uh would be native and inappropriate
and you know visually acceptable
we're not going to go to any extent like
has been done
on on the on their current home but
this is just more of an open space form
in
an area where they have visual control
of of you know what's happening behind
their fence
mr burke would you would you consider
even
stopping the breakaway point
cutting the fence across out of the
floodway
can you tell me right off hand i saw
that line how far
back is that that's that's in a practice
the 100-year flood
plain that's that's your your high mark
boundary
because that's not a that wouldn't be a
flood way that
that could be just simply you know
calm water at that point
right well that that was the advice that
i received from franklin county soil and
water
and the ordinance adopted is in
accordance to their
regulations so so
it appears that looking scale wise on
this that
uh it's a little hard to say but it
looks like the
floodplain might be back what uh 30 40
feet or something maybe it's just a
guess because
i don't have a scale with me and i'm not
sure i've got
50. yeah i'd say about maybe 35 feet or
something
um is is this a
this is bobby hall is this a situation
where the fence could be
moved to the east by
10 or 15 feet and and uh
get out of the flood plain i think
that's what we're thinking about
is it not kathy i i would verify that
with with mr reuter
because i i believe that you know the
flood flood way
functions as it cur in its current state
so anything that you put within that
floodway
could impede that and and cause change
of flow so that's what they're trying to
control
the riparian setback is simply a matter
of whatever vegetation or plantings
taken out that something's going back in
its place to make sure that you're not
going to erode
the banks so i believe that possibly if
we can get that
fence at the back up out of the floodway
then you might be able to install the
type of fence you're talking about and i
would
defer to mr rooter yeah the the bank is
actually you know significantly to the
west i
i can't imagine that there's any problem
with quote erosion
if you look at those photos it's fairly
flat back there
and like i said normally when i'm
looking at a flood wave versus a flood
plain
uh you know the the flood way is you
know it's
high volume uh fast speed of water and
so forth where
that 100 year floodway to me means the
water may reach it
and in this case because it's so flat
back there it may only reach it and be
inches deep i uh you know so i'm
i'm questioning that be honest with you
well i believe we did have a solid fence
that was installed uh just north of
main street along some apartments or the
condominiums there
and i believe it was like a four inch
they had to raise that fence four inches
from the grave okay to allow
to not impede so if it's that small i
think you'd still
get your security yeah well if it's four
inches we i wouldn't have any objection
with that
okay so it's just if we start raising it
you know 18 inches or something where
someone can easily crawl underneath it
yeah i believe 4 4 inches would work but
um
i've also received some of this
information that we have on the website
was also received from a neighbor who
had some concerns about what's happening
there
right and you may also absolutely say
okay is there any um
is there anybody in the audience that is
for or against this matter please
if so raise your hand on the computer
there
we have dan sharp okay who now has
talking permission
okay mr sharp can you hear me yes
chairman can you hear me
i can thank you very much uh i know that
you live next door
that's correct sir would you raise your
right hand and be sworn
raised thank you do you swear or affirm
that any testimony you're about to give
the board this evening will be the truth
and nothing but the truth
thank you thank you very much tell us
what you think about this proposal
well thank you and um thank you for
serving bexley in this capacity
uh especially on these unprecedented
circumstances of covid yes but the case
you have been presented so uh gratitude
to you on those fronts uh
genuinely i do have uh two specific
concerns one is related to the height
request
variance and the other is in fact the
details around the
riparian and i think mr burkhart was
able to allude to some of the
uh absolute lack of clarity in this
application
that franklin soil and water has not yet
been consulted
and according to the codified ordinance
chapter 1258.093 there is an explicit
expectation of what constitutes a site
plan
and what has been submitted only meets
two of 11 requirements
so i think there's some work still to be
done on behalf of the applicant's
positioning uh from your your
perspective
uh through franklin soil and water but
also meeting
that chapter's expectation um
and so the reprairing component has the
environmental sensitivity and i
completely
respect my neighbors desire for security
and would like to remind the committee
that they have a sufficient existing
fence in place currently and that this
request is
entirely elective and optional
and they are not without alternatives
and in the material that i
submitted to you all it includes one of
those alternatives
at the commonwealth park south and
drexel
which has different fencing material
and it has uh examples of landscaping
um it's one of the appendices at the
bottom of the letter that was submitted
that's helpful for for screen sharing
okay
um so the the image that you see there
we'll just
that's uh image from my backyard that
shows
and this would be the exemplar of my
concern for the hen
the fence height variance one foot from
my outdoor living space
which really brings forward an
institutional and an industrial
feel with a proposed chain-link fence
i've heard both vinyl-coated green and
black and quite frankly
to use that technical term that's
lipstick on a pig when we're talking
about the imposition
and the proximity to the outdoor living
environment
again this fence could go anywhere as
an alternative or not even be placed one
foot from my outdoor
living space that would then tower over
an existing
wall um probably too small to see that's
a six foot wall with a step down to five
and a half feet
which would give the the clearance of
three feet
in excellent current level um
so that's my you know opinion on that
but what the code would say is
is in chapter uh 1264.9 the variance
request
must speak to unique characteristics of
the property
created that create an unnecessary
hardship
the applicant has not even addressed
what unnecessary hardship the property
is is bringing forward i understand
personal security needs might be the
request but as i understand it the
property needs to
express some of those
chairman b hall i have the actual
application if you'd like i'm more than
happy to
read the questions and their answers on
the variance worksheet
what um be able to still hear me yeah we
you got cut off there i think oh i'm
sorry yeah um
um mr sharp used to what is
why that application material this rose
that you might be referencing wasn't
publicly available in advance of the
meeting
i apologize say what are you apologizing
for i'm not quite sure i'm following you
the actual application was not on the
website
okay can you screen can you screen share
it kathy
okay be patient i'll attempt
let me ask a couple questions here and
mr sharp i'm not trying to cut you off
i'll let you continue but
it seems to me that we've got quite a
few
issues that require some
review of code sections not necessarily
the code section regarding variances but
the code section
1258 101 1258.093
and we don't have a good feel for
what the uh franklin county soil and
water uh
facility is gonna say unless there's
somebody here from that body tonight
and i'm not sure you have an email
there was an email jim jim burroughs was
the first person i was in touch with
regarding this case
and i provided him with our riparian
setback requirements
with the phone numbers of who he needed
to contact and uh
which was david reuter and and they were
in contact and
i was forwarded those contacts with
regards to
uh his uh him him reaching out to mr
reuter to explain what they were
proposing uh those are one of the
documents that are
uploaded to our website is that ms rose
is that the october
uh 2020 correspondence that generically
references what is allowed in a riparian
but he specifically states he's not seen
this case is that what you're referring
to
uh yes okay okay yeah so
i guess where i'm headed here is i think
the board
needs more information to make a
decision on this case i don't think
we're
what we need to have the city attorney
tell us some things about these code
sections
i think we need to know more about
whether
mr reuter whoever he is uh
thinks about whether we're infringing on
a on a
flood 100-year flood plain or waterway
i think we need to do to have a better
idea of the exact
how it's going to look from both sides
of the fence in other words on the
applicant's side and on the neighbor's
side
and i would ask mr burkhart if
your client would be willing to table
this for
one month so that more information and
data could be gathered
um i i think that's true and and i
understand the concerns of the neighbor
uh and you know the visual effect of the
fence is showing on the
one detail and i uh
i've already kind of made a commitment
to say
that i wouldn't be happy with that
either and
be more than happy to move the fence
back
six feet from the property line at the
upper eastern edge of the property and
and plant that with uh evergreen plant
material or what other kind of plant
material the
neighbor would be would like to see
so that we in fact can stream that fence
and probably
drop that fence to six feet high
until we get down the slope a certain
distance and then bring it back up to
the eight foot
hopefully that visually would uh
would be acceptable to the neighbor and
i i think it would be
not only acceptable to the neighbor but
it might be more acceptable to the board
as well so with that in mind
do you are you
okay with moving
to table this matter for 30 days
well i i think from what i've heard and
again i just
unfortunately just got involved in it it
appears as though
we definitely need to deal with uh the
floodplain issue
okay all right what the problem is when
when somebody comes it doesn't have
authority
to decide whether the table or not that
puts us in an awkward position right
right does any member of the board feel
that such a motion is appropriate
mr marsh i do okay
i'll make a motion that we table it for
30 days
okay nice second thank you miss mitchell
uh ms rose please call the roll
on that oh mr turner you have your hand
up i didn't see you right away
i just had a quick i just had a quick
question you were going to go back to mr
sharp to let him
finish his comments i just want to make
sure if there's anything else he needs
to say
yeah that's a good point thank you very
much mr sharp
uh you understand where i'm headed here
with this motion and let
let me hear your thoughts you're you're
i want to hear all of your thoughts but
i also want to hear your thoughts about
uh tabling this for 30 days
great thank you are you able to hear me
i am thank you we all are
wonderful thank you and thank you for um
catching that mr turner much of
appreciation
uh and mr burkhart thank you for the the
suggestion i think that's headed in the
right direction
um and chairman i am
ecstatic with the the tabling for 30
days there is a lot of detail that still
needs to be fleshed out
and um truly documented and and miss
rose would it be possible that i could
see that application
uh yes i'd be more than happy to send
that to you but i'd also like to comment
because when i did call mr rooter
because i knew of your interest in
having this fence
screened with vegetation such as our
provided
something more evergreen and mr
reuter had some concerns so i believe
you do need to work with him
on what would be appropriate as far as
spacing
and what species so sure i would
probably
defer to the applicant on on that yes i
just want
to make mr burke aware no certainly and
i would recommend certainly
any recommendation from the forester
and bexley to align with bexley's
arboretum status
i'm certainly understanding that that
would be the precedent
so noting that you know we have have
table you've
been able to touch on the height concern
especially at my
living environment it is important to
note that
in advance of this hearing and before
any approval
the applicant has cleared the land so
when mr
um burkhart mentioned that it's ugly and
it has vines
um from the africans that's already been
taken care of
and it's not just invasive species that
were taken down it was a gross overreach
of um the riparian code again it was not
just the invasive species that was
removed and cleared and most
unfortunately and i understand this is a
civil matter
the contractor cleared a large part of
my property
during their their activity and so uh
this shows to me on behalf of the
applicant a complete disregard for the
city code
and it's tremendously important to me
that this uh committee
follows to the t and dots the eyes for
this matter please
so i'm uh appreciative of your
understanding
the the code needs to be adhered to uh
while we
try to honor my neighbors need for
security which again
can certainly be done through their
existing fencing
all right mr sharp we certainly
appreciate your coming down
i guess i used to say that when we were
at city hall but you're appearing on
zoom tonight and giving us your thoughts
and your uh concept and i hope that the
applicant is able to and the applicant's
agents are able to work
with you to come to a conclusion that is
acceptable to all parties and
we will hear the case next month but we
will of course and we always
do regardless of whether the parties
agree we make sure
that the app the application for
variants meets with all the city code
requirements for variants so
we will do so in this case as well thank
you
all right sir uh kathy uh please call
the role there's been a motion in a
second
on a tabling of this matter until the
april meeting mr sheikh
yes miss mitchell
yes mr turner yes
mr fout yes mr marsh
yes mr levine yes
and chairman b hall i vote yes as well
so the matter is tabled
thank you to mr burkhart and mr sharp
for
their time this evening and hopefully we
can get this
get some more information and work out
some more details over the next month
thank you very much thank you thank you
all right the next chase on the agenda i
get to see the agenda again here
where am i right wood
is brentwood okay so uh
i'm gonna have to uh
take my uh hat as a board member
off because this uh application is
directly across the street from me and
so i don't think it's appropriate for me
to
uh serve on the board on this matter and
i think that's been the
policy of the bza for
some time now that if uh there is a
direct impingement
on your a property and
that that it would be more appropriate
to step off the panel
and so i won't participate at all now
i'm gonna i might put on my neighbor hat
depending on what happens but uh but i'm
uh
off the panel on this case so the vice
chair who
is mr marsh is it not
yes mr marsh will you take this case
over please
sure absolutely thank you sir um
so for i guess uh i guess is there any
uh background on this one
well i also want to mention i know bob
did not get a notice and there was also
a neighbor
to the immediate west that informed us
that they did not receive a notice and i
wanted to check if there was
anyone in the audience that did receive
a notice on this
and i have um two hands raised
okay a miles hoover
and valerie with i don't have a last
name
are either of those neighbors they're
the applicants
okay they're both
hi miles hoover can you hear me
yes yes
okay i'm at a lacrosse game just in case
there's background noise but yeah we
were
we had reached out to our neighbors and
heard that they didn't receive
um the notice and they did express the
desire to just share some thoughts or
feedback and we absolutely want to
consider that
and review the plans in detail with them
and so we'd like to table
the um and come back in 30 days after we
can have discussions with you know any
of the neighbors that have thoughts or
feedback i appreciate that
that's great thank you so much great do
we does someone on the board want to
make a motion
so moved second second all right
um all in favor of tabling this say i
i i all again say no
so the table motion carries
great
all right uh the record should reflect i
did not vote
if you don't mind uh uh miss cook
mrs uh rose yes
all right the next case on the thank you
mr marsh
and thank you also to the applicants
there it helps us move these
cases
um the next cases is case involving 489
its case b z ap 21-8
the applicant is josh predovich the
owner
owners are amy wanzo and chris bell
the applicants are seeking a two-foot
variance from the bexley city code
section 1252.10
a1 which in residential districts
calls for the side yard setback along
the property line
along a street of a corner lot that is
over 40 to 50 feet in width
to be 15 feet
to allow a one-story addition to the
rear of the principal residence
the applicant is also seeking approval
of a certificate
of appropriateness so i'm not sure
that i got those
numbers correct but it looks like it's a
two foot variance that they're seeking
so with that in mind um
can we determine that there is somebody
here on behalf of the applicant
if they would raise their hand they um i
already recognized the names so i i
currently have amy
um bel wando and
josh predovich in the panelists room if
there's anybody else that is
an applicant or representing this please
raise your hand and i'll put you in the
room as well but
any other attendees that wish to speak
to this will wait until
um we take testimony from neighbors all
right
mr brenovich uh can you hear me
yes sir and is uh i can't see the other
person but it's amy
did i hear that amy bell wanzo
amy can you hear me yes we can hear you
and
chris and i are both here all right and
chris right next to you there got it
uh would if the three of you are going
to testify would you raise your right
hands please and be sworn in
do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you'll give the board this
evening will be the truth and nothing
but the truth
okay i do thank you very much
all right um kathy rose can you give us
a little background on this case please
from the staff's perspective
yes the existing principal structure is
on a 50-foot wide corner lot and is
located 13 feet from the
south side property line along caroline
avenue
the epic applicant is looking to add a
10-foot 4-inch addition to the rear
of the principal structure which would
be constructed in line with the existing
structure
the addition is proposed on the south
half of the west facade
to add a dining room space for the
kitchen there is currently a brick
patio in this location that would then
be relocated to the north side of the
addition to provide
a more private outdoor space and mexico
suction
for lots 40 to 50 feet in width requires
a 15-foot setback
staff does not does not find the
two-foot variance request
as excessive for standard lot size for a
standard lot
located on a corner which has additional
setback requirements
the structure appears to be located more
to the north
side of this lot if the board finds the
variance to be appropriate
i would like to point out that the
entrance on the north side of the
edition appears to have a set of stairs
directly from the opening and the board
may want to consider
approval to include a stoop be added as
this top step
for an easier transition subject to
final review and approval by the design
consultant and i'll defer
to karen for the design contents from
arb
all right karen please yes i'm kathy
just pretty much gave my design thing so
that's fine um this application was
approved as a consent agenda item which
means that the board was fine with it
and didn't have any discussion
voted in the original group of
applications
that we vote on um and with a positive
recommendation
i had talked to the applicant about the
ad addition of a stoop
to the new stairs at the rear um and
explained to them
architecturally that while it's probably
not required by code it is very
difficult to get in and out of a door
when you don't have a stoop so
i think they they are fine with that i
see them nodding
so other than that um the board of uh
the architecture review board um
recommends this to you for
for approval of a can of a certificate
of appropriateness
all right thank you very much uh mr
brenovich or
uh chris or amy uh do you want i i see
that what we're doing is we're just
extending
into an area that is your house is
already 13 feet from the street
and so we're not going any further into
the side yard than we already are
yes sir that's correct so did the staff
give us a pretty good idea i mean this
seems like a pretty sensible
addition there's nothing real
razzmatazzy going on here except you're
just creating more living space
and moving the patio
that's correct or is everybody okay with
the stoop
being a condition of uh any
consideration by the board
yes i think the only thing i would add
uh sir is that um
we will probably look to extend the
patio and make the patio a little bit
larger
um since we're extending the stoop and
the stair further into the patio area
we'll probably look to wrap the patio
a little bit around to the uh i guess it
would be to the west
um and so that being the case we may
want to amend the plan just to to
reflect a
little bit of additional hard escape
so are you okay with whatever you do
being subject to the
approval of our city design uh
uh specialist yes sir
okay uh kathy uh karen uh boker are you
okay with
with any um alterations being uh
subject to your approval yes
yes i am and i will just make the
comment that these drawings are awesome
i love the drawing technique hey josh
thank you is there anybody in the
audience that is
pro or con this application please
karen you see anybody put their hand up
no i do not
all right first case in a long time we
haven't had
anybody comment on
uh do the members of the panel have any
questions for the applicants or the
staff
i don't think i swore that dog in no it
would be a bold lie
so i wouldn't even waste your time
i think he was being rather rough on us
yeah yeah
carefully careful
anybody have any questions or comments
yeah i was just going to say briefly
that uh the only thing i would say is as
a person who 10 years ago put
a steps outside his double doors without
a stoop
you guys are doing the right thing it's
been
all here good experience is a beautiful
teacher right
absolutely thank you yeah
all right um with that in mind uh
i would um ask kathy if you could read
for us the findings of fact
conclusions of law yeah i'm going to
read them for the variance first and
i'll read it for the certificate
appropriateness
second fine that's perfect so the
finance effect and conclusions of law
for application number bzap dash 21-8
for property located
at 489 northview the board finds upon
consideration of the application
proposed variants and evidence testimony
before the board makes the following
findings of fact
conclusions of law the applicant has
proven that the criteria to grant an
area of variance in mexico section 12
2611 c has been met and a variance from
mexico section 1252
0.1081 to allow a
two foot variance make sure i'm right on
that
one
[Music]
13 to 15 right
yeah two foot is correct all right thank
you two foot variants
uh to allow a one story addition
uh with the condition that a stupi added
at the
as the top step from the north exit of
the edition
all right thank you very much members of
the panel any additions
or modifications to the finding of fact
conclusions of law
hearing none um applicants uh
do you are you willing to accept the
conditions
as read by uh ms rose
yes okay thank you thank you very much
whereupon i would uh entertain a motion
to approve the finding of facts and
conclusions of law
there is such a motion so moved thank
you is there a second
thank you thank you thank you
second mr turner um
why don't we take mr marsha's uh
technique and
uh account here is all in favor of the
findings of fact conclusions of law of
approving them
say i i
all opposed please say nay and raise
your hand
since we're dealing audio visually here
all right show that it was a unanimous
approval
of the variance request
kathy would you give us the findings of
fact on the approval of the
uh certificate of appropriateness the
board finds after review of the plans in
consideration of the application
evidence and testimony given in the
recommendation of the architecture
review board
the board finds that a certificate of
appropriateness should be issued for 489
northview noting that the addition is
compatible with the existing
structure subject to the conditions
and minor modifications further subject
to
final review and approval by the design
consultant
i think that's correct is there any
changes modifications by members of the
of the panel none
uh applicants do you agree with the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
as read by ms rose
and agree to comply with them we do yes
thank you very much uh i would entertain
a motion to
approve the findings fact conclusions
law with regard to the
certificate of appropriateness
is there such a motion so move i'll make
a mistake thank mark
thank you mr marsh mr turner seconds
thank you sir
uh all in favor of approving the
uh application the findings of fact
conclusion law please say aye
raise your hand all right
all opposed say nay
the hearing none the matter has been
approved unanimously
and folks that's a nice project good
luck with it thank you for your time
and patience thank you thank you thank
you yeah thank you for
passing all right
the next case is actually
sessions isn't it uh no that is not to
be heard by this board okay oh i'm sorry
887 college avenue yes yeah i'm sorry i
i
my eyes skip to the bottom there this is
case b z ap
21-10 involving 887 college avenue
the applicant is tom beardsley the owner
is erica finn
the applicant is seeking a 19-foot
variance
from bexley city code section 1252 point
10 a1 the side yard setback requirement
from the property long line along a
side street for corner lots over 50
up to 100 feet in width it shall be
a 20 feet to allow
an existing screened porch on the south
side of the principal structure along
charles street
that is one foot uh
from the south property line to be
replaced with a new screened porch at
the same setback
and extended five feet east and even
with the front facade of the house
the applicant is also seeking
architectural design review
and approval
yeah who is here on behalf of the
applicant please
i have and keith muller who um
is here representing the applicant
correct
he works with tom beardsley i i work
with architect the
the company building uh proposing to
build the com
the project okay and have you been
authorized by the landowners to appear
in their behalf
correct yes all right thank you would
you raise your right hand to be sworn
do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you give this board this
evening will be the truth and nothing
but the truth
i do thank you sir uh
kathy's this your case as well yes
and and the
going over the plans um i've gotten more
details
on down to the inch for this this
addition that's proposed so
some of these numbers are tweaked a
little bit
but they're actually not as encouraging
as far
so this is a corner lot added to college
avenue and it has an existing screen
porch located on the south side of the
house along charles street
that is located 1.3 1.3 feet
from the south property line so it's
encroaching 18.7 feet
into the south side yard setback the
enclosed
space
is 4.4 feet from the south property line
and which encroaches 15 15.6 feet into
the south side yard setback so the house
is actually
encroaching as well the existing porch
is 18 feet in length and 9 feet wide
and the applicant is proposing
to replace and expand the screen porch
four feet and nine and a half inches to
the east
which will place it flush with the front
facade there is currently a set of
stairs that appear to encroach
approximately one foot into a portion of
the city right-of-way that will be
repaired replaced
in the same location so if we do have
something in that manner
it is allowed to be repaired replaced so
that was verified for legal comment and
doesn't seem to be a problem okay
uh yes and as this is a 50-100 foot
wide lot requiring a 20-foot setback
therefore the need
for um staff would look at this as an
update of an existing screen porch that
is encroaching 18.7 feet into the side
yard setback
uh it's not proposed any closer to the
side property line but simply infill the
space between the screen porch and the
front
east wall of the house if the board
finds it appropriate to grant a variance
to the required 20-foot side yard
setback it would allow the spring ports
to
be replaced at the existing setback and
extend four feet nine and a half inches
to the east and i will defer to karen
for design comments from the
architecture review board
okay this one's pretty easy this is more
of a zoning issue than architects review
this was also passed as a recommendation
for a certificate of appropriateness
as proposed in a consent agenda item
the board found no issues with the
architecture of it it's simply a
replacement
a little bit a little bit different in
style it's going to have
less fill-in look than it then than it
does currently
but it didn't even have discussion it
was passed as a consent agenda item
all right thank you very much mr muller
uh is there anything that you would like
to add to this uh
presentation please for the members of
the board no
i think uh uh karen and kathy hit it you
know we're really just trying to
update you know that existing structure
um you know extending it to the corner
um
just to give them a little bit more room
in there um
and then you know just just kind of
refreshing it
right and she was right when she said
the house is actually
in the side yard setback yeah yeah
all right well i think that i think this
uh
speaks for itself to some extent is
there anybody in the audience that's uh
for or against this application
i do not see any hands rates i only have
two attendees left
okay if either those two wishes to speak
raise your hands now or forever hold
your peace as they say
and uh members of the panel if you have
any questions
comments of the staff or of mr muller
i see no indication of such kathy can
you give me
you want to do two findings of facts
here as well uh
yes please okay please
the findings of fact conclusions of law
for application number bzap
21-10 for property located at 887
college upon consideration of the
application proposed variances and
evidence and testimony before it the
board makes
the following findings effective
conclusions of law the applicant has
proven that the criteria to grant an
area of variance mexico section 122611
have been met in a variance from mexico
section 1252.10 a
1 to allow an 18.7 foot variance
to allow a screen porch to be replaced
and expanded at the existing setback
shall be granted
all right members of the panel any
changes or modifications of any sort to
the findings of fact conclusions of law
hearing none mr muller are you uh
is the reading of the findings and
conditions acceptable to you and your
client
yes it is thank you very much thank you
um
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings in fact conclusions of law
i'll make a motion it's mr marsh first
thank you
there a second second ryan check it mr
schick thank you
all in favor of approving the findings
of fact conclusions law say
aye aye aye aye
all opposed please indicate by saying
yay or raising your hand
i see uh alicia you vote nay
oh you vote yay okay she's a positive
vote
all right so i hear no negative votes
the ma the motion passes
unanimously uh kathy can we have the
findings effect on these
certificate they're on the architectural
design approval
after review of the plans and
consideration of the application
evidence and testimony given in the
recommendation of the architecture
review board the board finds that a
certificate of appropriateness
should be issued for 887 college which
is
compatible with the existing structure
and should be approved as submitted
all right thank you any changes members
of the board
i see none mr mueller is that acceptable
to the
applicant yes thank you thank you thank
you for your time
all right thank you for sure for coming
this evening to give us
your end of the uh bargain here
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
so moved thank you mr marsh second
second
second ms mitchell thank you very much
all in favor of
approving the findings of fact
conclusions law regarding the design
approval say i raise your hand
anybody opposed nay please raise your
hand
all right i see no indication of such so
we have a unanimous approval of that as
well
good luck with your project there mr
muller thank you very much
thank you all right i think
that the only thing left is sessions
and so that was already things left
what is it
i sent a notice out for sessions village
to be on this agenda
and i was just simply wanted to place
that on here as a reminder to let people
know at the beginning of meeting which i
did
that this would not be heard this
evening okay
we still have two other additional items
we do
okay uh the
the joint livingston avenue plan
is requesting a representative from b
zap for the steering committee
is that one of the items uh ms rose
or karen okay uh
do they want to have somebody who has
some architectural
know-how or what is their what is their
uh
wish list on that i believe our mayor is
going to join us
to all right there he is hey mr mayor
do you have any input for us this
evening how are you
i'm doing well so yeah i'm doing well
thank you guys
good good job on uh on a short meeting
this evening it's impressive so i'm
planning on taking about five hours
tonight let's talk about this
seems reasonable um yeah so the the if
you might have read
that before or after the powerpoint
uh you might have read that the city of
bexley and columbus are entering into a
joint
livingston avenue plan there's
information here
on our website at bexley.org livingston
and the plan is designed to look at
opportunities to increase the traffic
safety environment
along livingston and
provide for unified development
standards unified
streetscape standards and just come up
with a plan for how we can jointly
improve
a corridor that's bridging two fantastic
communities of bexley and berwick sorry
three eastmore as well and
even touching on driving park in this in
the section of this plan that we're
studying
columbus has a very sincere effort to
engage with this we've been we've been
talking about it with columbus for many
years but in the past
year with the uh with some some
pretty severe accidents on livingston
avenue i think awareness
of the issue has picked up and so the
steering committee
is in the process of formation as it
says right here on the right-hand side
of our website and we are looking for a
representative from bees app
mr b hall you were asking architectural
or what sort of a background
frankly the background that i'm looking
for is a stakeholder at the beez app
who is passionate about
re-envisioning livingston avenue as an
area of opportunity
uh re claiming it as a corridor that
bridges our communities as opposed to
separates them so i'm looking for
passion that's that's
and and specifically a member of the
bees app and
i would say you know i i it wouldn't be
terrible if the
the member lived on livingston but that
member it's barely
it's fairly tied up with a whole lot of
stuff so i didn't want to i don't want
to press my luck but uh
i mean i have a stake in that the way
that turns out and i've had plenty of
accidents in my front yard
front lawn so well i think
i i don't think that any member of the
board
would object to your but but i want you
to
say yes you're willing to do so before
we make any moves
um i'm not unwilling to do it i just
have to
in full disclosure about to engage in
considerable work with naming our next
superintendent for school board
so i i would need to understand when the
yeah it's you know when this is all
about to kick off so
before i could make it uh educated aunts
give you an educated answer
so i'll get you that information or any
board member who's interested so
basically if you guys just
not to put anyone in the spot although i
totally did sorry alicia but if
uh if there's interest uh from from a
member just let me know
the steering committee is not it's not
going to be a b zap
media we'll put it that way so it's
going to be i think a series
it's very well defined in the scope with
nbbj
i think it's maybe four or five meetings
over a of a nine month period so
okay i'll make sure that you get that
information and everyone else would like
to
put their put their name in the in the
ring just let me know um
mr mayor if if miss mitchell either
finds that she cannot do it or needs a
surrogate to go in her place for any of
the meetings i'm more than happy to
assist her with that
great well let me ask the board mr
turner
i was just going to say i would as a
former almost linkston avenue
person who houses up on college for all
for about 30 years so i would also be
willing to
step in behind this mitchell if she
needed someone to
cover for her or something like that so
all right well so from a standpoint of
the board
does the does the board have any problem
with
uh sort of nominating if you will uh ms
mitchell to be the
uh first member and for mr messers
turner and schick to be
back up uh to her if she is a
unwilling or be unable to uh perform the
function of the be
zap representative does anybody have any
problem with that i'd like sort of a
let me ask is there anybody that is
opposed to that arrangement
we'll do it that way all right
then i think we have by acclamation uh
agreed that that's
a uh good way to proceed and i think
we'll have
uh a good good representatives there
uh to uh represent bizap
mr mayor thank you i really appreciate
it and you guys are too kind to give
your time so generously so thank you
very much
um and then i think our next agenda item
is uh karen i i the screen is yours but
it's to discuss an ordinance that's
before council right now and i just
wanted to set it up a little bit and
then let
karen uh kind of walk through you
through it with you guys she's been
doing a lot of work with the committee
that's
been working on this but as you'll
recall
several months ago we started we spun up
a subcommittee
to study the accessory structure and
garage
issue and from that subcommittee's work
uh came ordinance 1121 and
uh it's gone through multiple revisions
but essentially what it is it's kind of
it's trying to tackle uh the issue of
um detached garages and
context of the properties upon which
they're proposed
it's a form-based code which means it's
uh it scales to the side
size of the site um it's less concerned
about what exact district you're in
because we have such
variants among our districts it's more
concerned about
where that accessory structure sits in
relation to the site
and it provides for more rigorous
requirements if there is a
set above first floor space a second
floor space
um and if dormers are used and that sort
of thing so it's
it's it sort of codifies a lot of i
think the concerns that have come
from the bzap and arb um
as garages which might work well on a
certain site don't necessarily work as
well
on another site it also really tightens
up the definition of
a second floor karen has done a ton of
great work in
taking what has been codified in this
ordinance
and illustrating how it looks in
different contexts so really testing all
of these met
all of these ratios and proportions um
and i before karen goes into it i do
want to say that uh part of our any
rezoning process uh
asks for bezap feedback um
understand that you guys you know this
was added to the agenda a couple days
ago
you might not have read it yet and i
understand that and it's it's lengthy
and
um requires a depth of knowledge we also
expect that as we talk through it that
we're going to see some amendments to
the ordinance so
the anticipate what i'm hoping for from
tonight is that this
concept is socialized with the group you
guys get a chance to be introduced to it
and to understand it a little bit ask
questions
and then at the next bezat meeting a
month from now um
have hopefully had enough change chance
to think about it and we can talk about
it again
and uh get some formal feedback from b
zip
so with that are you all able
to see my screen because usually it has
a big green box around it and it doesn't
yeah no i see it yeah okay your whole
desktop karen so it shows your icons at
the bottom and everything
so you're good oh got it thank you every
day i learned something
new about technology i think i think we
do need to read it
uh karen don't you think i mean
yeah i do i was just gonna give just a
little kind of um
process update of where we are and not
go into the details
okay because i agree that you need time
to read it um
what i just wanted to share with you is
that this has been a great committee
and it's comprised of two members of
bisap which are ryan chick
and mike paplow who has not been joining
us on zoom lately because he
just can't do that many zoom meetings
but he has been
rigorously working on this and has even
done some of the drawings with me
um i mean in addition not not not my
drawings but the supplemental ones
i also um which supplemental drawing
karen
which which supplemental drawing how
many chicks
how many shakes high how many shakes
high can a roof bee
exactly um on
on arb the um the members that are
helping us
are bill heyer and larry hallman so we
have a great team and of course kathy
and i
and ben and eventually it will go to
catherine cunningham as well
um so i agree with you bob
wholeheartedly i don't think we can get
into any of the details here
what i did want to point out to all of
you is that
this um document is in its
uh it's not in its first
re iteration that's for sure but it will
definitely
have other iterations and amendments
before it's approved what we would like
you to do
is read it in detail outside of this
meeting
you can submit to me and i'll send it to
you as an attachment as well in an email
so it's easy for you to have at your
fingertips
i'd love comments back um
a a couple things to look out for just
to point out some of the make to some of
the major changes we're looking at to
control some of these garages
you know we're working hard to maintain
a balance where
we don't um put ourselves out of the
market
housing market where people want to do
more things in their garages than
they've been able to do but yet
not um cause a situation where garages
overtake
the loss which you know has happened so
um
that that's our goal a couple just
little details and i'm not gonna
read the five page document but i just
want you to look out for
we're really looking at um settling in
on a a minimum eave height which would
make it
so that if there is a second floor
at least the eaves would be either 9
feet 10 feet 11 feet we're not really
sure exactly where that's going to fall
yet
to to that point i will try to pull up
um just so you see and i'm not gonna
belabor this at all but i just want you
to kind of see
um what we've been working at can you
send us a copy of this so that we can
print it off and read it in hard copy
yep sure well beautiful and karen
karen if i may real quick to to the
chairs point
could we do that um in a separate google
doc like we did the first time because
i thought that conversation in the
comments was very very helpful on that
last revision
yeah i can do this in a google doc um
i'm not going to get into detail but
just so you can see i
visually put together a lot of of
sketches like the bear has referred to
so that you can really see what these
these kind of coverages look like
what the heights look like relative so
um these are the kind of the
as we move to design guidelines and as
we move to
looking at redoing ordinances we
definitely want to get some graphics
involved
because they're just easy for people to
read at least as
um as appendices if not directly into
the code
so um when i throw all this illustration
at you know that i do it because
that's what i love to do but i also
think it's very very helpful
working with residents every day for
them to see it relative
um so i won't go into any of the detail
i don't know ben if you have anything
else you want to add to it but
it is um a real working group it's been
a great
effort and now we have it out in the
process ben
once in front of city council and it'll
be a public reading
um in the future so we would like to get
your comments
yeah will we have access to these
graphics as well
i will put them on google yeah i can put
them into a pdf and
and put them into um google docs because
i think they're really
helpful to see it's a lot of
measurements in a lot of charts
you know as you go through this um so
it's nice to have
some of the the drawings nearby as well
excellent thank you
so i'm on dinner duty with the kids here
so i missed some of what you said karen
did you walk through the general
concepts
um or just say we're gonna send it
sounded like we're gonna
send a copy and let members read through
it i did a little bit of both
the general concepts i did touch on so
that they
so the board members when they look at
it know what we would like them to
concentrate on
and um and if anyone you know as you
know
i am i believe in dialogue so feel free
to
email me text me with questions anything
and then i will put all this up on a
google doc
then that's but what's been requested so
that we can have comments that way
did you talk about the demolition um
section of this the
demolition you mean about demolishing a
garage
yeah i i didn't get into the details i
think the board wanted to read it first
but if you wanted to touch on that
just particular make sure to read
section four because you it's
at the very end and it talks about um
the idea that a detached garage
um requires a replacement structure
replacement garage in order to be
demolished and that's that's a
that's a change for us and it's
interesting i was just driving
past a property today noting a
foundation of a garage that was sitting
there with rubble all around it
and it had clearly been like that for a
long time and i actually had not really
seen a whole lot of that or noticed it
in the past
but the thought here is we have a lot of
our garages that are you know maybe
they're still on concrete
construction and they're they're
starting to fail they're starting to
lean maybe they're rotting out
and we we stand to lose detached garages
without a requirement to replace and
it's a big requirement
so um it's a philosophical discussion
that i think needs to be had
the the focus group the the steering
committee talked about it
council has not delved into that
question very thoroughly at all yet and
and bees apps input is obviously very
important to this so
please do keep in mind as we do this
that we have a lot of
homes that have
attached garage as additions so it's
very carefully put replacement plan
not a replacement structure
right uh
i think that's uh something that we'll
all and we can make comments
and and ship them to karen right doesn't
have to be during a meeting
yep okay right that's even better really
okay ben ben does this also includes
removing accessory structures from the
definition of story that it doesn't
apply in that
situation yeah this that's i think
you know we've gone through so many
revisions i think that's correct it has
it has a very specific
definition uh for what that is
and so there are two things that happen
there's a there's a floor area
restriction as a ratio of the
of the underlying floor plate and then
there's a height restriction and
together
they operatively create a situation
where the volume equation that has
caused so much
consternation is no longer relevant or
applicable so we don't have to go into a
quantum
geometry in order to figure out the app
right but i want to make sure that it's
including the
the overall space because like when they
were doing these
cubic volume somehow the applicant
thinks they can eliminate
knee walls and and so i want to make
sure that they don't we have a way to
work around that because it's massing
and massing no so please try to figure a
way to work around it because
you can have a hackathon and figure out
if you can do it but i think it's pretty
specific i i
i don't know how you would work around
the way it's been defined but
and and one of the the tools like i'm
going to repeat myself but look for it
because i think it's a major change and
it's a really good change
it's a matter of what the height should
be to provide
a way that people can't work around it
is they eat a change of the eave height
for a second story
yeah right all right hey i will
mention to you too the the city staffers
here in the mayor
there's a brand new pool on dawson and
bexley park maybe that just got dug the
other day
and it's they put water in it the first
day but it has that little flimsy
orange planting around it and
the fencing was down i mean some little
kid could walk in there
the city supposed to fill it until
no yeah they should have sold it yet
brentwood ryan
brennanwood and dawson i could see it
right now if i looked out this window
right here that's what i thought it's
right by your
bad it's bad yeah i mean it's unsafe is
it which corner the north south east
west do you know
the pool is you could almost dive into
the pool from dawson street
you get closer to the street you could
hit the curb on dawson and fall into the
pool you're on a bike
yeah yeah we just is that the one we
just approved uh
yeah i think we have a contract in uh
summer
yeah and then defense we have approved
defense recently for it
right reach out to them and make sure
that they
get appeared yeah they need to get that
secured it's just definitely unsafe
all right you guys are my eyes anything
else going on if not i
seek a motion to adjourn yes
very much there is such a motion alicia
says
i can't believe i'm out of here in less
than two in less than eight hours
i'm going to put those documents all on
google this weekend
i got my second shot today so i'm
planning on sleeping all day tomorrow
well if we if we end now like my son
will have been at soccer shorter than
this meeting so
bye guys see you all right everybody